In the letter to Camerarius of January 10, 1535, referred to in the
preceding paragraph, Melanchthon plainly indicates that his views of the
Holy Supper no longer agreed with Luther's. "Do not ask for my opinion
now," says he, "for I was the messenger of an opinion foreign to me,
although, forsooth, I will not hide what I think when I shall have heard
what our men answer. But concerning this entire matter either personally
or when I shall have more reliable messengers. _Meam sententiam noli
nunc requirere; fui enim nuntius alienae, etsi profecto non dissimulabo,
quid sentiam, ubi audiero, quid respondeant nostri. Ac de hac re tota
aut coram, aut cum habebo certiores tabellarios_." (2, 822.) Two days
later, January 12, 1535, Melanchthon wrote a letter to Brenz (partly in
Greek, which language he employed when he imparted thoughts which he
regarded as dangerous, as, _e.g._, in his defamatory letter to
Camerarius, July 24, 1525, on Luther's marriage; _C. R._ 1, 754), in
which he lifted the veil still more and gave a clear glimpse of his own
true inwardness. From this letter it plainly appears that Melanchthon
was no longer sure of the correctness of the literal interpretation of
the words of institution, the very foundation of Luther's entire
doctrine concerning the Holy Supper.
The letter reads, in part, as follows: "You have written several times
concerning the Sacramentarians, and you disadvise the Concord, even
though they should incline towards Luther's opinion. My dear Brenz, if
there are any who differ from us regarding the Trinity or other
articles, I will have no alliance with them, but regard them as such who
are to be execrated.... Concerning the Concord, however, no action
whatever has as yet been taken. I have only brought Bucer's opinions
here [to Wittenberg]. But I wish that I could talk to you personally
concerning the controversy. I do not constitute myself a judge, and
readily yield to you, who govern the Church, and I affirm the real
presence of Christ in the Supper. I do not desire to be the author or
defender of a new dogma in the Church, but I see that there are many
testimonies of the ancient writers who without any ambiguity explain the
mystery typically and tropically [_peri tupou kai tropikos_], while the
opposing testimonies are either more modern or spurious. You, too, will
have to investigate whether you defend the ancient opinion. But I do
wish earnestly that the pious Church would decide this case without
sophistry and tyranny. In France and at other places many are killed on
account of this opinion. And many applaud such judgments without any
good reason, and strengthen the fury of the tyrants. To tell the truth,
this matter pains me not a little. Therefore my only request is that you
do not pass on this matter rashly, but consult also the ancient Church.
I most fervently desire that a concord be effected without any
sophistry. But I desire also that good men may be able to confer on this
great matter in a friendly manner. Thus a concord might be established
without sophistry. For I do not doubt that the adversaries would gladly
abandon the entire dogma if they believed that it was new. You know that
among them are many very good men. Now they incline toward Luther, being
moved by a few testimonies of ecclesiastical writers. What, then, do you
think, ought to be done? Will you forbid also that we confer together?
As for me, I desire that we may be able frequently to confer together on
this matter as well as on many others. You see that in other articles
they as well as we now explain many things more skilfully (_dexterius_)
since they have begun to be agitated among us more diligently. However,
I conclude and ask you to put the best construction on this letter, and,
after reading it, to tear it up immediately, and to show it to nobody."
(_C. R._ 2, 823f.; Luther, St. L. 17, 2060.)
In a letter to Veit Dietrich, dated April 23, 1538, Melanchthon
declares: "In order not to deviate too far from the ancients, I have
maintained a sacramental presence in the use, and said that, when these
things are given, Christ is truly present and efficacious. That is
certainly enough. I have not added an inclusion or a connection by which
the body is affixed to, concatenated or mixed with, the bread.
Sacraments are covenants [assuring us] that something else is present
when the things are received. _Nec addidi inclusionem aut coniunctionem
talem, qua affigeretur to arto, to soma, aut ferruminaretur, aut
misceretur. Sacramenta pacta sunt, ut rebus sumptis adsit aliud_....
What more do you desire? And this will have to be resorted to lest you
defend what some even now are saying, _viz._, that the body and blood
are tendered separately--_separatim tradi corpus et sanguinem_. This
too, is new and will not even please the Papists. Error is fruitful, as
the saying goes. That physical connection (_illa physica coniunctio_)
breeds many questions: Whether the parts are separate; whether included;
when [in what moment] they are present; whether [they are present] apart
from the use. Of this nothing is read among the ancients. Nor do I, my
dear Veit, carry these disputations into the Church; and in the _Loci_ I
have spoken so sparingly on this matter in order to lead the youth away
from these questions. Such is in brief and categorically what I think.
But I wish that the two most cruel tyrants, animosity and sophistry,
would be removed for a while, and a just deliberation held concerning
the entire matter. If I have not satisfied you by this simple answer, I
shall expect of you a longer discussion. I judge that in this manner I
am speaking piously, carefully, and modestly concerning the symbols, and
approach as closely as possible to the opinion of the ancients." (_C.
R._ 3, 514f.) A month later, May 24, Melanchthon again added: "I have
simply written you what I think, nor do I detract anything from the
words. For I know that Christ is truly and substantially present and
efficacious when we use the symbols. You also admit a synecdoche. But to
add a division and separation of the body and blood, that is something
altogether new and unheard of in the universal ancient Church." (3, 536;
7, 882.)
Evidently, then, Melanchchton's attitude toward the Reformed and his
views concerning the Lord's Supper had undergone remarkable changes
since 1530. And in order to clear the track for his own changed
sentiments and to enable the Reformed, in the interest of an ultimate
union, to subscribe the _Augsburg Confession_, Melanchthon, in 1540,
altered its Tenth Article in the manner set forth in a previous chapter.
Schaff remarks: Calvin's view of the Lord's Supper "was in various ways
officially recognized in the _Augsburg Confession_ of 1540." (1, 280.)
Such at any rate was the construction the Reformed everywhere put on the
alteration. It was generally regarded by them to be an essential
concession to Calvinism. Melanchthon, too, was well aware of this; but
he did absolutely nothing to obviate this interpretation--no doubt,
because it certainly was not very far from the truth.